Advertisement

Morphological Variation in Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens in the Levant

A Biogeographic Model
  • Yoel Rak
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Primatology book series (AIPR)

Abstract

It was only the geographic proximity of the Mount Carmel specimens that spared them from being assigned to many different taxa as “separate form[s] of humanity.” Were it not for these circumstances, McCown and Keith (1939) would not have conceived of accommodating such a great range of variation in one taxon. However, a clear morphological dichotomy between the hominids from Skhul and those from Tabun (C-l, the female skeleton, and C-2, the isolated mandible) emerges from their monograph. The existence of two kinds of hominids in a relatively small geographic area of the Middle East has since been confirmed through discoveries at several additional sites. Other hominids have been found, including specimens from Amud (Suzuki and Takai, 1970) and Shanidar (Trinkaus, 1983), which can be grouped comfortably with the Tabun specimens, whereas specimens uncovered at Qafzeh (Vandermeersch, 1981) can be added to the Skhul group. Until quite recently, McCown and Keith’s basic contention—that the Neanderthal-looking Tabun group represented the earlier, primitive anatomy, and the modern-looking Skhul group represented the later, derived anatomy—was generally accepted.

Keywords

Middle East Modern Human Zygomatic Bone Zygomatic Process Superior Pubic Ramus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bar-Yosef, O., Vandermeersch, B., Arensburg, B., Goldberg, P., La ville, H., Meignen, L., Rak, Y, Tchernov, E., and Tillier, A.-M. 1986. New data on the origin of modem man in the Levant. Curr. Anthropol. 27: 63–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bock, W. J. 1979. The synthetic explanation of macroevolutionary change: A reductionist approach. Bull Carnegie Mus. Nat. Hist 13: 20–69.Google Scholar
  3. Boule, M. 1911–1913. L’homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux-Samts. Ann. Paléontol. 6: 111–172;Google Scholar
  4. Boule, M. 1911–1913. L’homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux-Samts. Ann. Paléontol. 7: 21–192;Google Scholar
  5. Boule, M. 1911–1913. L’homme fossile de la Chapelle-aux-Samts. Ann. Paléontol. 8: 1–70.Google Scholar
  6. Boule, M., and Vallois, H. 1957. Fossil Man. Dryden, New York.Google Scholar
  7. Bowler, J. P. 1986. Theories of Human Evolution- A Century of Debate, 1844–1944. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, B. 1963. Quantitative taxonomy and human evolution, in: S. L. Washburn (ed.), Classification and Human Evolution, pp. 50–74. Aldine, Chicago.Google Scholar
  9. Dobzhansky, T. 1964. Genetics and The Origin of Species. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  10. Eldredge, N., and Cracraft, J. 1980. Phylogenese Patterns and the Evolutionary Process. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  11. Endo, B., and Kimura, T. 1970. Postcranial skeleton of the Amud man, in: H. Suzuki and F. Takai (ed.), The Amud Man and His Cave Site, pp. 231–406. Academic Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  12. Goldschmidt, R. 1940. The Material Basis of Evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven.Google Scholar
  13. Haas, G. 1972. The microfauna of Jebel Qafzeh. Palaeovertebrata 5: 261–270.Google Scholar
  14. Howell, F. 1952. Pleistocene glacial ecology and the evolution of “Classic Neandertal” man. Southwest. J. Anthropol. 8: 377–410.Google Scholar
  15. Howell, F. 1973. Early Man. Time-Life Books, New York.Google Scholar
  16. Howell, F. 1991. The integration of archeology with paleontology. Paper delivered at Spring Systematics Symposium, Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago.Google Scholar
  17. Howells, W. 1942. Fossil man and the origin of races. Am. Anthropol. 44: 182–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howells, W. 1975. Neanderthal man: Facts and figures, in: R. H. Tuttle (ed.), Paleoanthropology: Morphology and Paleoecology, pp. 389–407. Mouton, Pans.Google Scholar
  19. Hrdlicka, A. 1927. The Neanderthal phase of man. J . R Anthropol. Inst. 57: 249–274.Google Scholar
  20. Hull, D. L. 1978. A matter of individuality. Philos Sci. 45: 335–360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lambert, D. M., and Paterson, H. E. 1982. Morphological resemblance and its relationship to genetic distance measures. Evol Theory 5: 291–300.Google Scholar
  22. Mann, A. and Trinkaus, E. 1974. Neanderthal and Neanderthal-like fossils from the upper Pleistocene. Yrbk. Phys. Anthropol. 17: 169–193.Google Scholar
  23. Mayr, E. 1942. Systematics and the Origin of Species. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  24. Mayr, E. 1949. Speciation and evolution, in: G. L. Jepsen, E. Mayr and G. Simpson (ed.), Genetics, Paleontology, and Evolution, pp. 281–298. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
  25. Mayr, E. 1963. Animal Species and Evolution. Harvard University Press, London.Google Scholar
  26. Mayr, E., and Ashlock, P. D. 1991. Principles of Systematic Zoology, 2nd ed. McGraw-Hill, New York.Google Scholar
  27. McCown, T. D., and Keith, A. 1939. The Stone Age of Mount Carmel. Clarendon Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  28. Rak, Y. 1986. The Neandertal: A new look at an old face. J . Hum. Evol. 15: 151–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rak, Y. 1990. On the differences of two pelvises of Mousterian context from the Qafzeh and Kebara caves, Israel. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 81: 323–332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Rak, Y. 1991. Sergio Sergi’s method and its bearing on the question of zygomatic bone position in the Neandertal face, in: M. Piperno and G. Scichilone (eds.), The Circeo 1 Neandertal Skull Studies and Documentation, pp. 301–310. Rome, Instituto Poligraflco e Zecca Dello Stato.Google Scholar
  31. Ridley, M. 1986. Evolution and Classification: The Reformation of Cladism. Longman, London.Google Scholar
  32. Simpson, G. G. 1943. Criteria for genera, species and subspecies in zoology and palaeozoology. Am. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 44: 145–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Simpson, G. G. 1961. Principles of Animal Taxonomy. Columbia University Press, New York.Google Scholar
  34. Smith, F. H., and Paquette, S. P. 1989. The adaptive basis of Neandertal facial form, with some thoughts on the nature of modern human origins, in: E. Trinkaus (ed.), The Emergence of Modern Humans, pp. 181–210. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  35. Spencer, F., and Smith, F. 1981. The significance of Ales Hrdlicka’s “Neanderthal Phase of Man”: a historical and current assessment. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 56: 435–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stringer, C., and Grun, R. 1991. Time for the last Neanderthals. Nature 351: 701–702.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Suzuki, H. 1970. The skull of Amud man, in: H. Suzuki and F. Takai (ed.), The Amud Man and His Cave Site, pp. 123–206. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  38. Suzuki, H., and Takai, F. 1970. The Amud Man and His Cave Site. University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  39. Szalay, F. S., and Bock, W. J. 1991. Evolutionary theory and systematics: relationships between process and patterns. Z. Zool. Syst Evolut.-Forsch. 29: 1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Tattersall, I. 1986. Species recognition in human paleontology, J Hum Evol. 15: 165–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tchernov, E. 1984. Faunal turnover and extinction rate in the Levant, in: P. S. Martin and R. Klein (eds.), Quaternary Extinctions, pp. 528–552. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.Google Scholar
  42. Tillier, A.-M., Arensburg, B., and Duday, H. 1989. La Mandibule et les dents du Neanderthalien de Kebara (Homo 2). Paleorient 15: 39–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Trinkaus, E. 1976. The morphology of European and Southwest Asian Neandertal pubic bones. Am. J. Phys. Anthropol. 44: 95–103.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Trinkaus, E. 1983. The Shanidar Neanderthals Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
  45. Trinkaus, E. 1984. Western Asia, in: F. H. Smith and F. Spencer (eds.), The Origin of Modern Humans, pp. 251–293. Alan R. Liss, New York.Google Scholar
  46. Trinkaus, E. 1987. The Neandertal face: evolutionary and functional perspective on a recent homi- nid face. J. Hum. Evol. 16: 429–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Valladas, H., Joron, J., Valladas, G., Arensburg, B., Bar-Yosef, O., Belfer-Cohen, A., Goldberg, P., Laville, H., Meignen, L., Rak, Y., Tchernov, E., Tillier, A.-M., and Vandermeersch, B. 1987. Thermoluminescence dates for the Neandertal burial site at Kebara (Mount Carmel), Israel. Nature 330: 159–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Valladas, H., Reyss, J., Valladas, G., Bar-Yosef, O. and Vandermeersch, B. 1988. Thermoluminescence dating of the Mousterian Proto-Cro-Magnon remains of Qafzeh Cave (Israel). Nature 331: 614–616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Vallois, H. 1954. Neanderthals and presapiens. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 84: 111–130.Google Scholar
  50. Vandermeersch, B. 1981. Les Hommes Fossiles de Qafzeh (Israel) Editions du Centre de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.Google Scholar
  51. Weidenreich, F. 1943. The “Neanderthal Man” and the ancestors of “Homo sapiens.” Am. Anthropol 42: 375–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Weidenreich, F. 1947. Facts and speculations concerning the origin of Homo sapiens Am. Anthropol. 49: 187–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Weidenreich, F. 1949. Interpretations of the fossil material. Am. Anthropol. Assoc. Stud. Phys Anthropol. 1: 47–59.Google Scholar
  54. Weinert, H. 1953. Der fossile Mensch., in: A. Kroeber (ed.), Anthropology Today, pp. 101–119. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
  55. Wiley, E. O. 1981. Phylogenetics. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
  56. Wright, S. 1943. Isolation by distance. Genetics 28: 114–138.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoel Rak
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Anatomy, Sackler Faculty of MedicineTel Aviv UniversityTel AvivIsrael
  2. 2.Institute of Human OriginsBerkeleyUSA

Personalised recommendations